SIMMONS v. PRINCE Et Al.
343 Ga. App. 175
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Robert Simmons owned and built the Simmons Apartments (1975) where the incident occurred; plaintiff Devin Prince was a guest on the second-floor landing.
- The second-floor landing railing had balusters with unusually large gaps through which an adult could fall.
- On January 11, 2015, while leaving a cousin’s apartment, Prince slipped and fell feet-first through a gap and was injured.
- Prince had visited the apartment several times before, at similar hours, and admitted he had previously seen and knew of the large gaps; nothing obstructed his view at the time of the fall.
- Simmons moved for summary judgment arguing the gap was a static, open-and-obvious condition of which Prince had equal knowledge; the trial court denied the motion and an interlocutory appeal followed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Simmons was entitled to summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the railing gaps create proprietor liability for negligence | Prince: defective/unsafe balusters and noncompliance with codes made the railing unreasonably dangerous | Simmons: gaps were a static, open-and-obvious condition; Prince had prior knowledge so defendant lacked superior knowledge | Court: gaps were a static, open-and-obvious condition of which Prince had equal knowledge; summary judgment for Simmons |
| Whether building-code violations establish negligence per se | Prince: gaps violated building/safety codes, so negligence per se applies | Simmons: Plaintiff failed to show the codes are mandatory or have force of law; even if so, equal knowledge defeats liability | Court: Prince did not introduce the codes or evidence they were mandatory; negligence per se fails and would not overcome equal-knowledge rule |
| Whether spouse's loss-of-consortium claim survives | Wife: consortium loss from Prince's injury | Simmons: derivative claim fails if primary claim fails | Court: loss-of-consortium claim fails because plaintiff's personal-injury claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaskins v. Berry’s Boat Dock, 334 Ga. App. 642 (summary judgment standard and review)
- Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (two-part test: proprietor's knowledge and invitee's lack of knowledge due to proprietor's superior control)
- Hannah v. Hampton Auto Parts, 234 Ga. App. 392 (proprietor's liability rests on superior knowledge of danger)
- Hallberg v. Flat Creek Animal Clinic, P.C., 225 Ga. App. 212 (prior successful negotiation of static defect imputes knowledge)
- Cocklin v. JC Penney Corp., 296 Ga. App. 179 (rule applies only to readily discernible static conditions)
- Lariscy v. Eschette, 306 Ga. App. 205 (lack/inadequacy of railings can be a static condition)
- Argo v. Chitwood, 282 Ga. App. 156 (imputed knowledge after prior traversal of stairs with improperly spaced balusters)
- Norman v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc., 277 Ga. App. 621 (necessity of proving building codes are mandatory to support negligence per se)
- Briddle v. Cornerstone Lodge of America, LLC, 288 Ga. App. 353 (loss-of-consortium derivative on failed personal-injury claim)